• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
My argument actually is focused on apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization. I've described ad nauseum my position on those, and responded to jking's questions on how they relate to Islam.

You're using words like "Islam" and "Islamism" almost interchangeably and it's causing confusion. You're obviously moving the bar.

You have conveniently and consistently refused to address those points.

Actually, I addressed these points but you ignored my answer. I've already stated, numerous times, that factors other than Islam itself are the primary driving forces towards more radical and extremist interpretations of Islam.

I've tried to explain to you that you have not demonstrated a causative link between Islam and extremism. Correlation by way of demonstrating some commonality between those who practice Islam in the Middle East and Pakistan does not imply causation.

This was demonstrated in the same data with the results from Western European nations, Turkey, Tunisia, and the several Central Asian nations other than Afghanistan.

Myself and others have tried to point this out, and show that the limited data we have along with the very tired Pew poll simply does not support your conclusion that "Islam is part of the problem."

There are other geopolitical, cultural, and economic factors at play here. This is evidenced by the number of Westerners who have crossed over the Syrian border to join the Islamic State. These young men are not clerics, and likely know little about the Qu'ran or the teachings of Islam; instead, they are disillusioned, feeling nationless, powerless, and without hope.

As @King Stannis , stated, they are people who feel they are without a voice.

There was a second, tangential discussion that jking just started relating to "Islamism" -- a word he used -- and I was using it in the same sense he used it.

Yes, and do you know what Islamism is?

If you were talking about Islamism this entire time we'd have been in 100% agreement. I in no way support Islamism or Islamists; but one could argue, rightfully, that Islamism is contrary to the teachings of Islam.
 
You're using words like "Islam" and "Islamism" almost interchangeably and it's causing confusion. You're obviously moving the bar.

No, I'm not. I did not use the world "Islamist" with respect to the issues of apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization.

Actually, I addressed these points but you ignored my answer. I've already stated, numerous times, that factors other than Islam itself are the primary driving forces towards more radical and extremist interpretations of Islam.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether governments should repeal such laws, and whether Muslim scholars, teachers, adherents, etc. should teach 1) that religion should be purely a matter of individual conscience, 2) that adult Muslims should be free to publicly repudiate and change their religion, 3) that prohibitions against blasphemy should extend only to those Muslims who choose to bind themselves to those prohibitions, and that no coercive state or other force should be used against even them, and 4) that people should be free to proselytize Muslims or anyone else.
 
No, I'm not. I did not use the world "Islamist" with respect to the issues of apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization.

I see, so you have problems with how the faith of Islam, an apolitical religious system, views apostasy and blasphemy?

So again, I'm confused.. Myself, and @kosis, addressed this point. We also discussed this with @King Stannis , and compared these religious viewpoints in the Qu'ran with the previous Testaments (Old, and New).

I thought we generally agreed that this was a religious debate, about a persons faith. As Judaism, for example, has similar punishments for apostasy and blasphemy; yet this isn't reflected in any Western political system. You yourself acknowledged that those laws were mostly referencing rebellion, historically with respect to Judaism; which @kosis also responded to in kind with respect to Islam.

If we're talking about laws against blasphemy itself, then again the argument becomes political in nature. Historically, blasphemy laws had political context; for example, the case of Ahmed Douma who was prosecuted under Egypt's laws against blasphemy -- for insulting the President of Egypt.

Such laws are not in accordance with Islam.

And again, I question the argument.. How are these laws, which are not in accordance or supported by Islam, evidence of a "problem with Islam?" Instead the seem to be internal problems of the various nations and totalitarian governments imposing them, as has been mentioned by several posters already.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether governments should repeal such laws, and whether Muslim scholars, teachers, adherents, etc. should teach 1) that religion should be purely a matter of individual conscience,

I think this is obviously the case as it stands.

2) that adult Muslims should be free to publicly repudiate and change their religion,

Free as in criminally or spiritually?

If you mean spiritually, then many religions do not teach this. Christianity certainly does not. The Sacrament of Confirmation binds one to the Church, eternally.

If you mean criminally, then again, I think this is an issue of secularism. I support secularism, and most Muslims in secular nations generally do as well.

Again, I think you are conflating spiritual discussions with secular ones. You're compounding that problem by stubbornly demanding that religious leaders be secular, in nations that are not historically secular, and with a people who do not know secularism first hand.

3) that prohibitions against blasphemy should extend only to those Muslims who choose to bind themselves to those prohibitions, and that no coercive state or other force should be used against even them, and 4) that people should be free to proselytize Muslims or anyone else.

You in essence, want them to adopt the First Amendment.
 
And Jihadi John is a Pittsburgh fan...figures.


First Photo Of 'Jihadi John' As Adult Revealed
EXCLUSIVE: Sky News reveals an image of the man who went on to become the face of the world's most notorious terror organisation.

20:11, UK,Friday 27 February 2015

jihadi-john-split-without-credit-1-762x428.jpg

Play video "Sky News Reveals Emwasi Image"
Share on Twitter
  • Share by email
The first known photograph has emerged of Mohammed Emwazi - the Islamic State militant known as "Jihadi John" - as an adult.

Showing him with a goatee beard and wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap, the image is revealed in student records from his time at the University of Westminster.

It comes after the 26-year-old who became the masked face of the notorious terror organisation was identified as the figure seen in several videos of hostages being beheaded.

Sky News can also exclusively reveal details of Emwazi's academic achievements during his stint at the university in London's Cavendish campus, between 2006 and 2009.

According to the document, he passed all but two of the modules in his Information Systems with Business Management degree, for which he was awarded a lower second honours (2:2).

1/5
  1. jihadi-john-close-1-800x600.jpg


  2. aca-1-800x600.jpg

    Gallery: Jihadi John's University Academic Record

  3. document2-1-800x600.jpg


  4. emwazi-adult-credit-copy-1-800x600.jpg


  5. jihadi-john-original-edit-1-1-800x600.jpg


  6. jihadi-john-close-1-800x600.jpg


  7. aca-1-800x600.jpg

    Gallery: Jihadi John's University Academic Record
The record shows he was awarded a "condoned credit; retake" status for modules in Business Information Systems and Managing Business Organisations.

Earlier, a photograph had emerged showing the smiling face of a eight-year-old Emwazi sitting with classmates at St Magdalene's Church of England School in west London.

An unnamed classmate told The Sun newspaper that Emwazi, who reportedly came from a devout family, was the only Muslim in the class and would demonstrate Arabic writing to the class.
 
I see, so you have problems with how the faith of Islam, an apolitical religious system, views apostasy and blasphemy?

Whether or not Islam is truly "apolitical" is something on which even Muslims do not agree. But that aside, then answer to your question is yes. Because such views can (and actually do) manifest themselves not only in governments seeking to enforce these views via law, but some Muslims taking extra-judicial actions against persons perceived to have violated that religious prohibition.

I thought we generally agreed that this was a religious debate, about a persons faith. As Judaism, for example, has similar punishments for apostasy and blasphemy; yet this isn't reflected in any Western political system.

Again, I will go back to my point of defining a religion by how it is currently practiced/taught, not by rote recitation of the founding texts. I am not concerned about Old Testament prohibitions on apostasy and blasphemy because modern Jews do not seek to enforce those prohibitions, most don't seem to give even lip-service to the apostasy prohibition, and certainly, such beliefs have no impact at all on those who choose not to believe them. They are irrelevant in the modern world in which we live

How are these laws, which are not in accordance or supported by Islam, evidence of a "problem with Islam?" Instead the seem to be internal problems of the various nations and totalitarian governments imposing them, as has been mentioned by several posters already.

First, are you referring only to the very particular laws you cited in Egypt, or to the prohibition of apostasy and blasphemy itself?

In any case, there are a great many Muslim scholars and practitioners who disagree with your interpretation. You can argue that their interpretations are "wrong"., but there is no universally recognized authority to decide who is right, and who is wrong. And I'm not about to tell anyone what their religion is, or is not. What I can do even without being an expert is recognize that the dispute exists, and the belief that such prohibitions are in accordance with and supported by Islam is a mainstream view.

If you mean spiritually, then many religions do not teach this. Christianity certainly does not. The Sacrament of Confirmation binds one to the Church, eternally.

Again, I do not care what early doctrines may technically still be in force. What I care about is how a religion is currently practiced and understood, and if there is a significant movement forcing people to comply with specific religious beliefs via physical coercion. If all or virtually all current practitioners/teachers of Islam taught/believed that the punishments for apostasy, blasphemy and proselytizing Muslims were to be solely in the afterlife, I wouldn't care either. But that is not the case.

You in essence, want them to adopt the First Amendment.

No, because that carries all sorts of implications that go beyond the three issues of apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytizing. For example, under the First Amendment, the government is not permitted to provide any support or assistance to any religion. I could care less if other nations do that.
 
Last edited:
Prominent Bangladeshi-American blogger Avijit Roy killed





On Thursday night, the engineer and writer known for speaking out for secular freedom died after being attacked by machete-wielding assailants in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, a local police official said.

Roy, the founder of the website Mukto-Mona, and his wife were assaulted as they walked back from a speaking engagement, said Krishna Pada Roy, a deputy commissioner with the Dhaka police.

Police were investigating a "local hard-line religious group" that praised the killing online, the BBC reported.

Images published Friday on the blog of another prominent writer from Bangladesh show Roy, surrounded by onlookers, lying face down in a pool of blood.



'No one came'


"Bangladesh has become a safe haven for Islamists where they can do whatever they like," Taslima Nasreen, who had to leave Bangladesh after receiving death threats from extremists, wrote in her blog.

"They can kill people with no qualms whatsoever. Avijit Roy has been killed the way other free-thinking writers were killed in Bangladesh. No free thinker is safe in Bangladesh."

Roy died at a nearby hospital, the police official said. His wife suffered injuries of her own, including a severed finger.

The attackers carried knives and machetes.

A witness said an assailant pulled out "a big knife" and struck Roy from behind in the head and shoulders. Roy's wife, Rafida Ahmed Bonna, also was hacked on the shoulders.

"I shouted for help from the people but nobody came to save him," the witness told CNN. "No one came."

Last year, an Islamist activist said that Roy "will be murdered when he comes back" to Bangladesh, the author wrote in the Free Inquiry article.

Roy reported such threats on his life, according to people who knew him.

Despite threats, the writer regularly returned to Bangladesh for the February book fairs, said Michael De Dora, a friend of Roy's.

"Avijit was very idealistic," he said. "His understanding was that he wouldn't be killed, that if anyone ever tried to attack him or hated him, that they could just kind of have a chat and he would convince them ... that they could at least have a dialogue."

De Dora said Roy, who was an American citizen, reported last year's threat to the FBI, but the author was skeptical of alerting Bangladeshi authorities.

"For him, even if he was getting threats that he thought were serious, to not be able to go back to his home country and meet with activists and other bloggers and writers would be kind of horrible thought for him," De Dora said.

As in France after Islamic extremists murdered 12 people at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, Roy's killing has generated public outcry and demonstrations in Bangladesh.

"Dhaka University is a cradle of exercising free thoughts and democracy," Dhaka University Teachers Association (DUTA) said, according to the national news agency of Bangladesh, BSS.

"For these reasons, the communal extremists chose the university campus to launch attacks on persons of progressive conscience."



'Virus of Faith'


In the Free Inquiry article, Roy wrote compared religious extremism to "a highly contagious virus."

When his book, "The Virus of Faith," was released at a book fair last year, he wrote that the publication "hit the cranial nerve of Islamic fundamentalists," who started threatening his life.

"The death threats started flowing to my e-mail inbox on a regular basis," Roy wrote. "A well-known extremist ... openly issued death threats to me through through his numerous Facebook statuses."

In one widely-circulated post, Roy quotes the extremist as writing, "Avijit Roy lives in America and so, it is not possible to kill him right now. But he will be murdered when he comes back."

The Charlie Hebdo massacre, the threats on his life, the removal of his books from a Bangladesh online bookstore after pressure from extremists prove that "the virus of faith is dangerously real," Roy wrote.

Roy and his wife were attacked on the Dhaka University campus as they were leaving a book fair where Roy had spoken.

Based out of the Atlanta area, Roy was a "prominent defender of the free thought movement (and) advocate of atheism, science and metaphysical naturalism," according to his website. He authored seven books and his writings were also featured in numerous magazines and journals.

The couple has a daughter, Trisha Ahmed, a student at Johns Hopkins University, De Dora said.

Roy's outspokenness, especially on matters of religion, made him a target in Bangladesh, where nearly 90% of people are Muslim and 10% are Hindu, according to the U.S. government.



'A great loss'


A September 2013 blog post by Roy was headlined, "Happy Blasphemy Day, Happy Birthday 'Mukto Mona.'"

Roy wrote that the day is "dedicated to those who are systematically being persecuted, harassed, or killed for their simple expression of Freethought (more precisely, for their 'blasphemous' views towards religion)."

Countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Bangladesh have "retained social ideas that are reminiscent of the medieval age," when blasphemy laws were "equated with sin," the author wrote.

In Bangladesh, bloggers were jailed "on the sole basis that they were openly atheist," he wrote.

In Pakistan, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported at least 203 incidents of violence "in the name of religion," resulting in more than 700 deaths in an 18-month period. In Saudi Arabia, he wrote, a 19-year-old gang-rape victim was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for "indecency" and speaking to the press.

"The nonbelievers in these Islamic countries face the most severe treatment at the hands of both mullahs and the state," Roy wrote.

De Dora, director of the Amherst, New York-based Center for Inquiry's office of public policy, called the author's death "a great loss."

"Avijit was brilliant, yes, and a devoted advocate of free expression and secularism, but also just a very good person," he said in a statement. "Avijit was an inspiration to countless other freethinkers, in Bangladesh and around the world, and he was an inspiration to me."



Threats ignored


Bangladeshi Health and Family Welfare Minister Mohammad Nasim condemned the killing and called for the "expeditious nabbing of the killers and their exemplary punishment," the BSS news agency reported.

Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu "expressed deep sorrow and sympathy at the untimely death" on the same news site.

Jadabeswar Bhattacharjee, a contributor to Mukto-Mona, posted Friday that Roy had been killed by "some brain-dead Islamist bigots."

"I have no word to condemn this heinous crime perpetuated by these Islamist cowards," he wrote. "When such Islamist cowards failed in intellectual discourse with Avijit and when they found that their dogma has been proved hollow by Avijit, they settled the score by murdering him."

Bob Churchill, a spokesman for the London-based International Humanist and Ethical Union, said the "loss is keenly felt by freethinkers and humanists in South Asia and around the world" and called Roy "a colleague in humanism and a friend to all who respect human rights, freedom, and the light of reason."

The IHEU said in a statement that an Islamist activist "well-known" to authorities early last year threatened Roy and "repeatedly and openly talked about wanting to see secular and freethought writers dead."

"Those under threat have complained that authorities have ignored his threats and incitement, despite his credible links to Islamist extremists and similar murders taking place," the statement said.

There was no immediate response to the claim from authorities in Bangladesh.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/27/asia/bangladeshi-american-blogger-dead/index.html
 
Still arguing about whether Islam is inherently flawed? Yeesh.
 
And on another depressing note:

The first band of anti-ISIS rebels in Syria to receive American weaponry recently suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. After losing control of their headquarters and the weaponry provided to them by Western powers, this Syrian moderate rebel group simply dissolved.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/...-group-to-get-us-arms-dissolves-after-defeat/

I'm still not sure what our actual strategy has been in Syria, other than to draw a red line and then pretend we didn't. . Anyone care to take a stab at it?
 
And on another depressing note:

The first band of anti-ISIS rebels in Syria to receive American weaponry recently suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. After losing control of their headquarters and the weaponry provided to them by Western powers, this Syrian moderate rebel group simply dissolved.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/...-group-to-get-us-arms-dissolves-after-defeat/

I'm still not sure what our actual strategy has been in Syria, other than to draw a red line and then pretend we didn't. . Anyone care to take a stab at it?

Like all Obama Administration foreign policy, it is too little, too late, poorly thought out and designed to save face rather than accomplish anything meaningful.

It is weak sauce clown shoes.
 
Netanyahu's speech was pretty interesting...
 
Netanyahu's speech was pretty interesting...

Fuck that guy... It's disturbing that we're so comfortable with foreign leaders coming here and seemingly usurping our own President. Democrat or Republican, it was disrespectful.
 
I didn't see it, but I'm sure I already know what he said. It doesn't matter, he shouldn't have been here. According to the Constitution it is the authority of the president to receive these foreign heads of state. Not the Congress.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top